James Barber

Hi Shell, At some destinations disabled parking spaces have been established without a resident specifically asking for them. But most are at the request of a resident. The process isn't quick such that I've had concerns the applicant might pass away before the space is created for them. The council then reviews then at regularly intervals. I report about half a dozen spaces a year that need relining to ensure that they're clear.

Hi Guys, I don't believe budget allocations for Southwark COuncil highways renewals would be lost if it rolled over into a new financial year. Money from TfL sometimes comes with that threat but not highway renewals.

Hi Heart108, I'm against almost any blanket policies such as this. Southwark is really a number of communities with different needs, views and expectations. Specifically I'm against this proposal for every junction to have 10m double yellow lines at all our junctions. This was propsed for all North Dulwich Triangle streets last summer and I pushed as harder than normally acceptable for a min ward Councillor for that patch that it be refused but Village ward councillors - both Labour snd Conservatives - were perfectly happy for it to proceed there where the CPZ happen or not. Both should have started there last week. Sorry to hear about a P13 and motorcycle crash. The double me yellow lines are actually focuses on quoted residential roads. If you take a look at www.crashmap.co.uk you'll see such junctions have only rare crashes. Also research shows greater sight lines can lead to greater speeding. So although the doh me yellow lines looks a useful safety idea it could as easily lead to more crashes. EoY budgets. I suspect as likely to do with someone completing their personal al objectives by year end as anything else. Ideally they D start such things with us so we can influence the whole borough.

Hi Lazero, Heart108, The cost would be recovered in issuing tickets to drivers who park on the proposed double yellow lines. The council is currently working up plans for emissions based controlled parking one fees. I fear that removing around 2,500 car parking spaces via these double yellow lines - and some should be removed perhaps 2-3 metres at each junction to make it possible to cross the road - is designed to put sufficient parking pressures for people to change their mind about controlled parking. East Dulwich has made it's decision about this a few years ago. Such double yellow lines has been recently justified by Village ward councillors being applied to thE North Dulwich Triangle area due to the controlled parking zone being introduced.

Hi Mockingbird, Yes, Southwark Labour have plan to further centralise decision making and neuter community councils. First it was removing local planning powers, then fewer meetings, then removing power to appoint local school governors, now make only 2 meetings year when community council will make any decisions. The remaining fewer meetings will be solely talk shops. How to influence this. Attend the next Dulwich Community Council. Email your local councillors. Write letters to local newspaper. Tweet, blog etc about it. I can see that some wards councillors really aren't interested in making such decisions. So perhaps a two speed or multi speed approach. Those areas with engaged residents snd councillors having the budget and deciding how to organise their meetings within he budget available. I'm now on holiday for a week. Don't have too much fun without me.

Well done everyone who objected. RESULT.

10m is a quiet 20mph street is a sufficient space to park what 2 1/2 cars. I doubt many people would think it dangerous to park within 10m. The argument give by the council is that 10m is required to ensure adequate sight lines to reduce crashes. But the crash data for the unction proposed is close to zero. The guidance is for junction that when written would likely have had high speed limits than 20mph. It's a silly excessive proposal taking no account of local circumstances or all council policies. What's particularly sad is that it's been implemented across the borough and it's only because Dulwich residents are more vocal that we've this temporary reprieve.

Hi Chazzle, My understanding is that the builders yard and customers have rights to travel along Railway Rise but not to stop on it. It is a private road maintained at the expense of the owner. But the coalition government removed the rights of private wheel clamping which has made it much harder for the owners of such roads to discourage illegal parking. Hi Jamma, Mrs D, I'll find out and come back to you. Im on holiday from Saturday so welcome back to you week commencing 28 March. Hi DB&B, Let me find out. When the Alleyn Park sorting office closed for parcels to be collected we weren't able to stop the but that was about 7 years ago and a number of legal changes around such services have occurred.

Hi uncle glen, clearly if you have more double yellow lines you have more area to patrol. HiScootingover, Starting a thread to ask people to attend a meeting I couldn't attend that affects the area. That would be strange political self interest indeed. This concept has been implemented across the borough as it is the current administrations policy. They deferred the decision until the next community council. In parallel they have a consultation to remove traffic decisions from community councils. If this had been proposed after May we wouldn't have heard about it until much later when it would be even harder to stop.

The decision last night confirmed by fellow Cllr Rosie Shimell was that the decision is deferred to the next meeting when officers and the Cabinet Councillor responsible attends. It appears that all Dulwich councillors yesterday received emails asking for a re think. This thread probably helped to create this. Thank you to those who have helped create this postponement. It is an opportunity to get the proposed madness changed to reflect local conditions. All other parts of Southeatk have had this done to them removing thousands of car parking spaces.

Hi Abe-Froeman, The legally required public consultation proposed is when an advertisement is placed at the back of Southwark News. Its usually only propeller heads like me that spot them. The agenda pack for Dulwich Community Council I received at my home on Friday night. But I had been away for a couple of days through work. And I was away helping at a cub and scout camp all weekend so only last night did I get to read the pack after a parents evening. The report is clear that almost all junctions would have double yellow lines added. And my recollection this morning is most don't have lines. Hi P68, IF you were correct 1000 metres of new double yellow lines / 4m per car would equate to 250 car parking spaces being removed. I think what's propose is around 640 less car parking spaces in the East Dulwich ward alone or 2,500 across the Dulwich area. But the rational is flawed. Yes the highway code says people shouldn't park within 10m of junctions BUT this is for any type of road with any legal speed limit. Obviously 20mph roads would need much much less than 10m.

UPDATE 16 May - Southwark Labour have ignored all three ward councillors and the 85% of the 77 responses objecting to the implementation of double yellow lines across East Dulwich. Labour controlled Southwark Council are proposing to introduce 10 metres of double yellow lines on each side of every road from every junction across Southwark. It appears a slavish following of the Highway Code which says you shouldn't park within 10m of junctions. But of course the Highway Code is for all roads and doesn't vary this distance based on road speeds - all our roads are meant to be 20mph. Clearly 10m is over the top. For 20mph roads 2 or 3 metres to ensure space for people to cross roads should be fine. The decision about this will be presented at the Dulwich Community Council tonight from 7pm at Kingswood House, Seeley Drive, SE21 8QR. Due to a work commitment I can't make this meeting so I would encourage others to attend and explain if they are for or against this proposal. The maths is East Dulwich ward 34 junctions each with 4 branches, each branch road with two sides x 10m = 2.72km of double yellow lines. College ward 4.4km Village ward 2.96km The Dulwich Community Council has 9 councillors members 5 Labour, 2 Tory and 2 Lib Dems. As this is Labour policy it is very likely to be passed tonight. Labour have no plans for a public consultation. In fact this will be probably the last traffic change involving the community council as Labour are proposing to remove this power from community councils to be involved with moving all traffic decisions to the leader of the council.

Hi Richard, Private road. I would imagine the owner of the road doesn't need TMO to place such double yellow lines. My understanding is the council would need to issue a Traffic Management Order to enable legal enforcement by the Police, etc. So can you park there I guess yes. But as the road isn't maintained using any public money then morally I would suggest you don't. Equally the owner could introduce a gate and lock you in if you used it. They could block you in by parking a vehicle. Doubt the Police would want to get involved. I would suggest life is too short for the potential hassle. And across East Dulwich you can usually find somewhere else to park. Curious which private road you're thinking of? Railway Rise? richard tudor Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If a private road puts down double yellow lines > > A. who is responsible for painting them on the > road and does Southwark make a charge if they do > it. > > b. Is permission required from Southwark to do so > > c. Is a TMO required to be posted > > I look forward to you answer

Good to hear people getting bookings in reasonable timescales. It shows what we could have always had if the owners weren't maximising profits at the expense of very ppor patient experience. Please people report any problems with this that would imply this was a temporary if welcome blip of good service.

If people object to the licensing application it would help stem this tide. I suspect they're seeking longer licensing hours than the planning conditions currently allow and will them go back to planning to have that condition amended to increase hours to the licensed hours. Otherwise why do it. Assuming such a planning application is refused the developer/M&S will appeal. These guys have deep pockets to keep wearing us down.

Hi Bic basher, You used to be able to walk on the overhead walkway to catch Charing Cross trains. Not sure where going through gatelines and dank corridors came into it. Hi nxjen, The station is going to have 9 through tracks rather than previous 6. So reintroducing the South London Line - suspended due to building works at London Bridge or pushing through a terminating train onto Charing Cross may not be he difficulty you've suggested. Hi spanglysteve, The London Bridge works are about getting more long distance trains through London. They're not about improving inner London services. All this pain will have no gain. I did get thE southwark Plan to include Southwark would supportive station redevelopment at London Bridge if it resulted in improved services for Southwark residents. But that was quietly forgotten by the council when the planning application went to committee.

Hi Bic basher, You used to be able to walk on the overhead walkway to catch Charing Cross trains. Not sure where going through gatelines and dank corridors came into it. Hi nxjen, The station is going to have 9 through tracks rather than previous 6. So reintroducing the South London Line - suspended due to building works at London Bridge or pushing through a terminating train onto Charing Cross may not be he difficulty you've suggested. Hi spanglysteve, The London Bridge works are about getting more long distance trains through London. They're not about improving inner London services. All this pain will have no gain. I did get thE southwark Plan to include Southwark would supportive station redevelopment at London Bridge if it resulted in improved services for Southwark residents. But that was quietly forgotten by the council when the planning application went to committee.

Whichever practice you use if you experience poor service complain. With regards to DMC I made a formal complaint about it citing several pieces of casework residents agreed I could do this about and other copied me complaints they made. Such practices are in receipt of a lot of public money and it shouldn't take long to right such obvious wrongs. Fab Sue you got an appointment but it seems a ridiculous way to manage a publicly funded service. GP's are almost universally private businesses. Ironic so many are against further privatisation but never ask for this private part the NHS to be made properly public again. The school model might be better where GP's are employees and the school have governors or trustees volunteering to guide and steer them as public bodies. Certainly in Dulwich the current model appears very broken.

Back to this thread. All three East Dulwich ward councillors attended the planning committee tonight. We spoke against the planning application. The committee voted, and this has become a regular pattern, Labour councillors the majority for the application accepting it was 50% over the suburban densities for the area. The two Lib Dem councillors voted against stating they agreed it was an over development. Currently it feels like a free for all for taller denser buildings in Southwark. I've not seen an application refused on these grounds for several years now. Planning committee aren't whipped - they are quasi judicial - but if you attend enough planning committees they give this aura. Schemes are being granted permission that exceed our policies and strategies. Before such decision making was removed by the Labour administration it would have been decided by local councillors in Dulwich. My experience of local Dulwich councillors deciding such schemes was they knew the area better. That the M&S applications would not have been granted permission. Which means the officers would have more ability to get better schemes presented than this one approved tonight. One small request I made was accepted - adding a condition for s Construction Management Plan in the hope this will eliminate the outlandish developer habit of ignoring hours of work on the site. Assuming this works it will be a little more considerate for nearby residents and less officer time enforcing the rules. One bizarre point was a resident objecting to the scheme quoting word for word the H&S Executive guidelines about delivery lorries and bandsmen. Then the Southwark transport officer stating Southwark policy which completely ignored the H&SE Exec guidelines.

Hi immyp, I'd have thought you do need planning permission. But if you email me I;ll get a definitive answer from the council planning department for you.

I'm puzzled tommy2. I'm unclear why illegal driving should be enforced? The no entry is to reduce rat running. if you live on that street and would like it removed as a restriction then happy to help you consult with your neighbours about this.

Marks and Sparks have also made a licensing application. they wish to sell alcohol 6am-midnight 7 days a week. BUT the site only has planing permission to operate as a shop Mon-Sat 7am-10pm & 10am-6pm Sundays and Bank holidays. You can see the application here - http://app.southwark.gov.uk/licensing/LicPremisesAppliedDetails.asp?systemkey=851512 You can tell council licensing officers by 31 March 2016 whether you support or oppose such opening hours via [email protected] and please copy me so I can see how things are going.

Hi rupert james, Bit unfair on the other two councillor.s I know Cllr Rosie Shimell plans to be present but will also be covering the Standards Committee as well. Rosie covers face to face surgeries and I cover the East Dulwich Forum. Im also much more of a propeller head about planning. Hi Robin, Thanks for the Cil suggestion.

Hi uncleglen, Yes, people do have to apply for disabled parking bays. It isn't a quick process. Currently local councillors via the Dulwich Community Council are consulted. This is now proposed to be removed and a councillor from outside the area will decide from Tooley Street, SE1. Hi Coolbananas, KK, People can seek to place such portaloos on the public highway. But usually this is because they have no space on site. This is a massive site with existing toilets and no residents So I would expect them to properly project plan the site so they don't need portaloos. I'll ask officers what we can do to ensure they minimise the chaos local residents have been experiencing - late illegal building works have unsurprisingly left a bad taste in many mouths.

Hi first mate, After some serious reorganising of family diary I'll be at the planning committee speaking as a ward councillor against this planning application.